Quote from: ATguy on January 11, 2016, 10:51:16 AM

But the slide is big fail with just one 1 MB known value and presented function which comes not from fit with at least two known values but just from author willd guess, thus the obvious and eye catching absurd 3 MB and 8 MB propagation time predictions.

Maybe, just maybe the author ran tests?

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 11, 2016, 10:56:04 AM

I was really really shocked that this quote from brg444 was not deleted:

I can't do anything about that one.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 11, 2016, 10:56:04 AM

I moderate myself a small bitcoin forum in germany, and I was told so often that I'm too soft against trolls. But I'd never ever allow some nobody with too much time to hooligan social media and to insult and polemize people which, if you like them or not, have done a lot for bitcoin and have brought out interesting research.

That's kind of interesting. Thank you @Hostfat for you comment in this thread. Are you still moderator? Are you allowed to promote XT or any other forkcoin? Why are you still a moderator here?
-snip-

I'm quite strict actually; same applies for people who tend to manipulate with words. Hostfat is still a moderator and has the same posting rights as every other user. As far as the german section is concerned, you would have to check in with the moderators there. Moderators tend to handle situations differently and have the right to interpret rules in their own way (to a reasonable degree obviously).

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 11, 2016, 10:56:04 AM

Thanks for sharing. I read the roadmap-faq (and I find the roadmap a solution that could be quiet reasonable, especially with the now mentioned 2-4-8 approach after IBLT and thin blocks ...).
-snip-

I really recommend that you watch the first scaling workshop if you want to learn more about the transactions.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 11, 2016, 10:56:04 AM

Yes, I'm completely aware that the more clients, the more complexity and the more fragmentation of the development and the eco-system. If every client has its own developers, we'll face insufficient developer-communication and development-redundancy, and if every exchange and payment-provider and wallet has to integrate different clients and make them compatible, we will loose a lot of development-time. As I said in the conversation with Veritas in this thread, I also fear that a fragmentation of bitcoin can destroy the ecosystem.
-snip-
At last, I don't agree with you to rejecting alternate clients by some prejudicement of their developers. If you'd ask me about the integrity of core, I'd say it suffers heaviliy from the small block militia and that I'm skeptical to their biasment cause they don't distance themself from this kind of hooligans and from the restrictions in free speach that HostFat also criticizes. But if core presents good code, I'll run it. From the alternatives I like some, and dislike some other - I'm not sure if I'm allowed to talk about them explicitly - but this has nothing to do with the persons behind it.

So it doesn't matter if an alternate client is run by potentially bad actors? Would you just let some random (potentially harmful) stranger keep your house safe? Of course you would not. I might be okay with a single (good) alternative. If we have more than that, then the added complexity will most likely not be worth it. I do admit that SegWit and LN add complexity but they offer advantages that make it worth it (especially LN).